Posted
by
Zonkon Saturday September 24, 2005 @03:36PM
from the self-sealing-stem-bolts-for-sale dept.

pbaumgar writes "Boston.com is running an article discussing their top 50 Sci-Fi TV shows of all-time. What are some of your favorites?" From the article: "Number 10 -'Sliders. 'Sliders' should have been a widespread hit, but it was ahead of its time. The show was about a wiz-kid genius Quinn Mallory, played by Jerry O'Connell, and his band of three companions who slide among Earth's alternate realities. Toward the end of the series, the show quickly slid in quality as three of its stars - O'Connell, Sabrina Lloyd and John Rhys-Davies - departed and were replaced by others. A tragic demise to a fine show." They don't even give a nod to greatest-trek-of-all-time DS9, so I don't know about this list.

SAme here, sliders was an excellent series. I thought it had a ton of potential. I even remember one episode that had a matrix like theme where people were walking around with these VR goggles but living in an alternate reality. There were several episodes like that, that eventually ended up being used in later movies. The chick in it was really hot, too (don't remember her name). Maybe they will remake that one some day though the idea isn't as fresh as it once was.

I've heard John Rhys-Davies in person speak about his leaving sliders. It was several years ago and so I'd probably not even try and quote what he actually said whilst I was present, the gist of it was that he left because although he loved the concept of the series he saw it already going downhill before he decided to leave. I think he's been quite public about this and I managed to find this quote [sliders.net].

"I like SF. I love intelligent SF," Rhys-Davies says in his deep basso voice. "When you come across good writing, and I think 'Scorpion' was finely written, it's a wonderful thing. I had just come through a period where the contractual nature of my job obliged me to take scripts that frankly wouldn't get past Writing 101. We had the most wonderful series concept with Sliders, but we did everything that had been done before and we did it every damned episode. We did Species. We did Tremors. We did Twister. We did War of the Worlds. We did The Island of Dr. Moreau. It was out of control, just out of control.

"I think Tracy did a nice job early on. We had our differences and we fought occasionally. In the end, Sliders wasn't the worst experience I ever had. I was just disappointed. Again, I love SF. I'm a passionate believer in Sliders. The series could have been great. The public always understood the of Sliders. The public understood that you could go anywhere in the galaxy. The writers, though, would try to graft a Law and Order story, or something they had done or seen before, onto Sliders and just make the characters work around it."

It was already going hill and that's why John Rhys Davies left. He wanted Sliders to continue to be good science fiction and venture into more solid, hard science fiction whereas the rest of the powers that be wanted the show to be more light and fluffy and typical crap that qualifies, these days, as scifi. So, he left.I've always liked him, but after that decision, I gained a lot of respect for him as a professional. And the fact that they couldn't keep a solid cast stringed together afterward just shows h

Hmmm, you know... I could swear I saw something on BBC 1 called Dr. something a short while back.. I wonder what it could be.

Also, as a strange side note.. some of the shows they listed can hardly be described as "Sci-Fi", I'd say they thought: "Let's make a top 50 list of the greatest sci-fi shows ever!" and then kinda got bored half-way through and just started adding shows they liked as kids regardless whether they be sci-fi or not.

"Doctor Who was resurrected in 2005; 2006 is in production, and has been green-lighted through 2007."

Not only that, but the resurrection also brought in a munch needed jump in the quality of the show. The filming is better, the writing is better, and the effects don't look like MST3K anymore. Hehe.

I'm starting to realize that a lot of complaints about these shows are by people who haven't invested in them. I didn't like Farscape or B5, but man, I honestly can't say I've seen more than 5 eps of either. S

"As you've said repeatedly. People who want to have their SciFi spoon-fed to them with a predictable Star Trek space opera format will not like Farscape. Something original is out of many viewers' comfort zone, but it's too bad that it resulted in the cancellation of a show that appealed to fans of real science fiction."

Oh brother. First, Farscape died because it was too dependent on cathing every single episode. Second, enough of the elitist bullshit. I can't believe how obnoxious the Farscape fans I've

My complaint is that The Twilight Zone (Original Rod Serling version) was way down the list. That was easily the greatest Speculative Fiction series ever made for TV. Easily. Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: TNG were good series, true, but not as good as Twilight Zone. Some of the greatest SF/Fantasy writers ever wrote for it, and I most emphatically include Rod Serling among their number.

The Twilight Zone will stand the test of time. It already has since it's a creature of the late 1950s to early 1960s. While so much of what is on the list will be forgotten, it will remain a classic.

That was painful to see, but when Battlestar Galactica (new) after ONE SEASON ranked higher than both is ridiculous in the extreme.

I loved the old Dr Who, but I can see reasons why you'd give Star Trek or Twilight Zone a leg up. Unfortunately most of what passes for "Sci Fi" nowadays is Space Opera w/ Wild On chicks given scientist roles. IMHO the last decent sci-fi series was the first half of the X-Files... nothing in the past 5+ years has much to do with science at all... is space-fantasy at best.

BSG has proven to be interesting but the writers are stuck on the idea that changing the sex of known characters constitutes "unique" changes. After the premier that "stunt" loses all meaning.

There is also the possibility that the series is highly rated because it's simply a good show and not because it is completely "unique" from the original.

The fact that Starbuck used to be a guy doesn't have any impact on that unless you're stuck on the original series. Starbuck being a woman has created some interesting plot points, and the "stunt" you were referring to has only been made a big deal by detractors, not the producers. It has never been a major selling point to watch the show.

BSG is doing well because it's simply a good, entertaining, and thoughtful show. The end.

you didn't read closely.When Starbuck was presented as a woman that indeed was unique and a good change to make. After listening to the podcast for Pegasus the writers seem to think that it still is original to recast male characters are female characters. The whole story of multiple Boomers, who used to be a male character, also is a great touch because they did something with the character other than changing the sex. The problem that currently exist with the Starbuck character is that it is very littl

Yea That is a crime. They also left out.Red Dwarf.Blake's Seven.Star Cops. I really liked that one from the BBC.Both series called Probe. Probe from the 80s was written by Asimov no less. I didn't remember Probe from the 70s until I looked up the one from the 80s. It could be redone today.You also had Time Tunnel from the 60sI dream of Jeanne! Think about it. It had fantasy, the guy was an Astronaut. It was as much science fiction as say Buffy, or Third Rock. It was also very popular.And the almost forgotten Planet of the Apes TV series.And of course a HUGE Hit show that seems to be totaly forgotten from the list... Mork and Mindy!

Yes! Finally another fan! I thought I was the only person alive that even remember that show, I really loved it. A while ago I was lucky enough to track down a torrent with good-quality rips of the whole season.

I have to agree. As someone else said of Farscape, there are better SF shows, but there certainly aren't 50 of them! How it could be left off (along with Farscape and Red Dwarf apparently) is a mystery to me. Sure, it started poorly, but the last 2/3rds of the season were great. It had a lot more darkness and grit than many SF shows.

Also a little cnfusing is that while they managed to pick up Nowhere Man (which was a surprisingly good show all things considered) they somehow neglected The Prisoner (to which Nowhere Man owes a great deal).

SAAB was definitely one of the more promising Sci-Fi shows around.It was mature in that there were no ridiculous alien species and warfare was very much a serious business - there was less reliance on rely on flashy special effects and cool guns or technobabble and more focus on conflict and tragic destruction. I remember vaguely the episode "Abandon All Hope" where

It was human in that the main characters were flawed in ways that were fundamental and related to their scarred past. It wasn't the sort of chea

Wow, food for thought indeed.I see that resemblence, but in a way BSG has more hope, there is more room for "gee what if". SAAB had a relatively confined, military story, just soldiers trying to get through the war. BSG (not counting pegasus) was dark, but every episode tried to give you hope that, even though your race was killed in a horrific nuclear holocaust, and you were running from an inplacable foe with little or no resources, things were kinda looking up.

Wrong. This is the best SAAB website:
http://www.cyberpursuits.com/heckifiknow/saab/defa ult.asp [cyberpursuits.com]
They have one of the finest Multimedia sections I've ever seen for any show. Full downloads of the entire soundtrack, a HUNDRED video clips... this is just a motherload of content.
This show is everything that the new Battlestar Galactica is (#2 on their list). SAAB was truly ahead of it's time with it's long story arc, outstanding characters you really cared for, fantastic special effects, a realistic, gritt

"no cheap and lazy 'holodeck' plot contrivances"Well you had space ships with wings that banked like airplanes, I do not remember how they solved that whole FTL thing. And if I remember right they often had the fighter jocks land there space planes and become ground pounders.It may have been enjoyable but no cheap and lazy contrivances?

Less than a lot of shows. It compares pretty well to the new BSG actually. The ships actually had control jets front and back (similar to BSG) and while they did have a tend

They have a pretty weird definition of science fiction. I mean, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.? Mystery Science Theater 3000? Tales from the Crypt? Avengers? Batman? Buffy? Why not Friends while you're at it? I mean, a New York without any colored people?

Batman owned a 20,000 decibel bat-belt. Now I'm not sure the writers had a clue as to how dangerous something of that magnitude would be. But batman has a weapon that it above and beyond 99% of all Sci-fi weapons... A Death Starhas nothing on that bad boy.

Unless you have a particularly narrow definition of Science Fiction, most of those fit. For example, The Avengers had invading plants from space, killer robots etc. How can you not call it Science Fiction?

The media industry, in deciding what genre a show is, can't slice the pie too fine, or the definitions become useless. They are more likely to define the genres according to audience, since that's what advertisers want to see. So, no Horror-fantasy, Horror, High Fantasy, or Historical Fantasy genre labels for us.

Given that the media industry has so much influence on public perception of things, is it surprising that people slowly change how they label things to fit the media labels?

"There is some ambiguity as to what exactly "science fiction" covers in terms of television. In recent years, the term has come to cover any programme that deals in the fantastical or even merely the horrific, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed or Angel. More accurately these programmes are not science fiction as they don't involve any real scientific element, and are perhaps more comfortably covered under the generic term "telefantasy"."

I'm sorry, and I'm sure this is beating a dead horse, but Superman, Batman, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, et als. are not SCIENCE FICTION. Granted, there may be a correlation between the viewership of said shows, but these shows don't even pretend to be futuristic, or contain a science element at all. Batman, maybe, but I hate it when people lump these things all under the "sci fi" umbrella. This is why we have all this horror shlock on the Sci-Fi channel and things like Farscape get cancelled.

The top ten of this list I can agree with. Lost isn't even close to sci-fi, but man, how do you leave off Lexx from this list? Nothing grabbed my attention(and made me cover myself with a pillow) more than that show did.

If they just hadn't made that fourth season, Lexx might have made the list. The first season's four movies were great, showing the result of the four creators fleshing out their story, characters, CGI artwork, and background details for over a decade. Every idea they had went into crafting that universe, and it showed. The movies were good enough to get the series picked up for at least two more seasons, but by then they were out of ideas, and the 2nd and 3rd seasons were abyssimal.To get the series funded

Synapsis: This head alien interrogates others [wikipedia.org] like it regarding its numerous abuses by Man. Freaky episodes about the aliens' fashion, body morphing in their latter life stage, even discussions about how they can get their alien race to win the Presidency [wikipedia.org].

Episode 1 introduces the balloon-like Rover, guardian of the Village. No technology like it existed then or now. Later in the episode, #6 is given an "electropass" which, by inferrance, amounts to a low range wireless transmitter, which emits a "key" signal to Rover, telling it to ignore the bearer. This is not dissimilar to current technologies which didn't exist in 1967 (such as bluetooth or WiFi).

Episode 5 (The Schizoid Man) mentions and Episode 6 (The General) features an advanced AI in charge of predicting complex social patterns and forming brainwashing strategies. It is presented as being capable of answering any question, with the exception of one, insoluble by man nor machine.

Episode 6 also features a concept called "speed-learn," a process by which a person can quickly absorb large amounts of information via a television broadcast. It is presented as giving a full 9-week class in the space of 30 seconds.

Episode 12 (A Change of Mind) fatures a non-invasive form of neurosurgery, using highly focused soundwaves. Although the device is not used on #6, its functionality is demonstrated. Technology such as this did not exist in 1967, and likely does not exist now.

Episode 14 (Living in Harmony) features a combination of hallucinogenic drugs and audio stimuli which produces an impossible effect with any known drugs.

Many elements within the series are used frequently, including implied mind-control rays/beams/lights/sounds which induce instant paralysis, the precise location of The Village, and the unknown function of the teeter-totter device.

And if the final episode (Fall Out) takes place in this universe, I want to know how.

How else do you explain Buffy the Vampire Slayer coming in lower than Wonder Woman? Ok, granted Linda Carter's breasts were bigger than all of the combined breasts of every female Buffy cast member but I don't think that should be the deciding factor.

Heh, I think it's safe to say this list is full of shit, since ST: Voyager is rated higher then Firefly. But then again, he did rate Voyager lower then Xena, which seems to be pretty spot on since we all know what a bastion of quality science fiction Xena was.

Oh, and "'Star Trek Voyager' started off slow but ended as one of the better 'Star Trek' spinoffs" is not necessarily a compliment.

I can't believe no one seems to have mentioned this yet, slashdot is not normally short of firefly fanboys.
Not that it actually deserves top spot, that should belong to Babylon 5, with Blake's 7 in second, but IMO firefly should still have made top 10

Well, this list is clearly just a cheap method to generate ad revenue, but if we give the paper the benifit of the doubt, I think the list is a bit daft.

Xena, though a fine show, is hardly a science fiction. It has none of the technology, exploration of current social problems, or even exploration of various cultures. Pretty much it just a medeival cop show.

Sliders was not ahead of it's time. It was just another huckleberry finn, star trek, docotor who knockoff with none of the redeeming factors. It is quite suitable for the adolecent maile, with a good role model, a pretty girl into geeks, and trivial story line. However, there are no layers that might make it interesting to an adult. The writing was woodden, even by scifi standards.

One contemporary scifi show that is seldom mentioned is 'The Cape'. Based on reality, good exploration life, and how we might move forward. Much more interesting than anything I saw on that list, though the show only works if you ignore current reality, as is true for most scifi.

Great, now I feel old.... (I remember The Invaders first-run).... The Invaders was one of the very first SF series to achieve mainstream acceptance and commercial success, as it generated an audience among folk who normally only watched soaps and dramas.I agree with someone above who said that this article was for the purpose of generating traffic, and the list was pretty much pulled out of their ass. That is, it's whatever shows they could remember offhand, with no research whatsoever, and probably by a m

Us Brits were just lucky I guess. Blake's 7 [wikipedia.org] was the ultimate anti-Star Trek. Here Blake and his dubious crew of criminals and freedom fighters/terrorists took on the all-powerful Big-Brother-esque Federation.

In the first episode our hero is set up as a post mind-wipe former rabble rouser that witnesses the mass murder of a secret meeting of dissidents. The authorities have him set up as a child molester, destroy him and his reputation and then ship him off to a penal colony (after having his lawyer an

What about "The Time Tunnel [tvparty.com]"? The list has "Quantum Leap" and QL is simply an updated TTT. Both were pretty much the same thing except QL overlayed a social commentary on the time jumps that TTT didn't.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was SF in the same way that The Wild Wild West was (in fact they were very similar series, just set in different environments) -- in that both frequently had "futuristic" (with respect to the era the show is set in) villains, and futuristic villains' gadgetry.So yeah, these shows are borderline by any standard, and don't fit the purist definition of SF. But under the broad definition of SF as any sort of non-mundane fiction ("we know it when we see it"), they both fit.

was good to see B5, the new Battlestar Galactica and two incarnations of Star Trek in the top ten, but Voyager beating Firefly??? And they clearly had to have cut DS9 to make room for the injustice they did in honoring Atlantis at all.

Hey, Boston.com, there's more to good SciFi than Jeri Ryan's boobs. (Like Kaylee....:-D)

You do realize that arguing about this list makes you sound like the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons, right? I'm serious. Just read some of the threads in his voice, and it sounds like a custom-made script, a soliloquy of unrequited geek passion.

#5 Battlestar: Galactica (new)#4 The Outer Limits (original)#3 Star Trek TOS#2 Stargate SG-1#1 Babylon 5...is not worth reading any further IMO. The only arguable point in my mind is whether BSG should actually be ahead of The Outer Limits. My feeling is it probably will be, and could even beat out ST:TOS in the end, but for now it's where it should be.

This isn't really a story; its just a bunch of blurbs about show plots with actually no commentary whatsoever. I clicked through fifty pages of that nonsense hoping to find some meat to it, but I hath been led down a path of ad impressions and wasted time. From now on I'm boycotting all thigns Boston, except when the Sox play the Yankees, and then only to root for the Yankees. Thats right Boston.com, I said go Yankees.

On a slightly more relevent note, I just marathoned like seven episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica on my DVR, and I think it might actually be the best show on TV, including those edgy shows on cable where they show boobies. Its that good.

Agreed. I can't believe Farscape didn't make the list while shows like Wild Wild West, the Man from UNCLE, and the Avengers did. The Prisoner was far more SciFi than the Avengers, and that didn't make the list either. While I liked the other shows, they were not science fiction. While the original Star Trek probably deserves the top spot, the only other show that had fans actively protesting and trying to reverse its cancellation was Farscape.

I don't see why a sci-fi series shouldn't have a soap-operatic quality to it. Babylon 5 (and, on its heels, DS9) showed other sci-fi writers that a long-term, overarching plot is well-received by many sci-fi fans. Witness Voyager, on the other hand, where the only thing tying the shows together was this "Oh Noes, We're A Bazillion Light Years From Home" thing, while five minutes before the end of every episode they pushed the Magic Reset Button to solve their problem and restore the plot to the way it was when the episode started.

These days, every episode of Stargate SG-1/Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica (some of the most popular current sci-fi) is based on the entire series up until that point (in fact, the first line in most episodes of SG-1 these days is Chris Judge saying, "Previously, on Stargate SG-1...").

Besides, the soap operatic plot of most sci-fi shows holds up to scrutiny a lot better than most actual soap operas: "I love you, but.... I have amnesia!"

I won't complain about the possibility of a Sci Fi being a soap opera.

Babylon 5 was not a soap opera. Babylon 5 was a story. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. Towards the end of B5 you can definitely see all of the pieces being moved off of the board one by one.

A soap opera is not going anywhere. Things just keep happening. You can keep it up for as long as you want. Characters can come and go. The basic direction can change. This is very different than a novel, or Babylon 5.

DS 9 might be a soap opera. (I quit watching after 2nd season due to liking B5 better and had insufficient time for both DS9 and B5.) I don't know if DS9 was a soap opera. Was the story working its way towards any overall conclusion?

This brings me to the new Battlestar Galactica. I wonder if it is like B5 in that there is a distinct conclusion that they are heading towards? Maybe so, but maybe they don't have a plan for getting there? Will they drive off into the ditch along the way and never get to the conclusion. I sure hope not. I would be very disappointed in investing time to watch it.

Absoultely. DS-9 started off weak, but once the long plot lines were developed (more than one) the show became a great ones. Not only that, the magic reset button can totally ruin a show (mucking about with time for example to reset for example. SG-1, for example, has done this at least twice, and both times they did not fit well with the rest of the plot.

In a book, that's what can make a great book, is a well-defined plot line that goes from start to end. We should expect that of a series (any, not j

Worse than soap opera, it was a political soap opera. Hours and ours of policital posturing, the Dominion, the painfully boring politics of Bajor.... That's the only Star Trek series that was so bad that I stopped watching it.

Don't get me wrong, Enterprise jumped the shark on occasion (alien Nazis), but at least Enterprise had a little humor, characters with personality, and story arcs about characters you actually cared about. They were just occasionally a little too far-fetched.

The only good Star Trek was TNG - and that's only in comparison to the other Star Trek spinoffs. Otherwise, comparing Star Trek series is like comparing the color of different shits. Yes, there are slight differences, but they're all still steaming turds.

Shows like The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone were not always sci-fi, but when they were, they were usually the absolute best. Cutting out these shows would be like cutting Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and others from a list of the best rock music, because some of their music wasn't rock.

I have never understood why so many people seem to believe that "sci-fi" must include aliens or space ships to be sci-fi. Sci-fi often becomes confused with fantasy.

If we were to make a list of "best" sci-fi, and strictly adhered to them being actual sci-fi, I do not believe you could get a list of 50 if you limited yourself to television. In order to have a list with any meaning, you would have to seperate the truly great from shows that either failed entirely, or were never able to garner more than a niche audience. And because of the non-linear nature of the best specimens of sci-fi (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc - shows that were not dedicated to sci-fi-only), you would be forced to either include these sometimes-sci-fi shows, or admit that your list just lost it's heaviest hitters.

In such a list, I get the feeling that Farscape MIGHT only stand a chance of getting in. As for Lexx, First Wave, this new BSG, and many of the other shows experiencing a brief period of popularity or who have a dedicated and vocal but small audience... they wouldn't stand a chance.

As for Stargate, I never personally got into the show, but it would most likely make it into such a list intact. It's probably the only currently running show that would.

And dammit Star Trek SHOULD be at the top of the list. No one can say another sci-fi show has had a greater impact. Twilight Zone would be next in line, then probably Lost In Space (another show I never loved, but has stood the test of time).

And dammit Star Trek SHOULD be at the top of the list. No one can say another sci-fi show has had a greater impact.

I'll agree that Star Trek had a big impact but that doesn't make it any good. I saw an article or essay once that suggested that the only reason Star Trek was so popular was because it was the first time that the general populace had been exposed to sci-fi. Sci-fi writing had moved on from the "go places and do stuff" type of stories thirty years before Star Trek came out.

Now I've tried it(Battlestar Galactica). Thanks to some of these people, I've watched MANY episodes of it, and I understand it less each time. How can even average-smart people put up with such terrible writing? Such stupid plots and stupider plot holes? Such transparent and flacid attempts to be edgy and gritty? Such... lack of immagination?(edit mine)

In contrast to the origional series aka Wagon Train in Space staring Lorne Greene? A boy and his mechanical dog? And evil inverse video goat man? Making it a point to create perfectly reflective robots without regard to lighting resulting in having to use colored filters so you couldn't see the crew? Recycled special effects from the movie which employed recycled special effects. Not to speak of Galactica 1980 who had a group of kids farm with their super strength or play baseball and win to avoid detection from the goverment. Or worse yet "You're pregnant? How is this possible? Must have been devine intervention!" Can you say a transparent attempt to prevent kids from finding out where babies come from?

I know there are fans of the old series who might be offended, but let's face it BSG 1979 had some awful moments and the new series in many regards is an improvement. I agree it shouldn't get a #2 spot. It's too new and hasn't had long enough to prove itself.

Pity. UFO was pretty cool for its time. Intriguing story line, more or less plausible technology, believable aliens. The special effects were grade "B" and the characters sorta thin, but good entertainment nonetheless.